Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider
registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

You don't think part of teaching someone to be a good lawyer is teaching them how to build and prosecute a case?

That is the problem. Being good at prosecuting a case does not make someone good at knowing what is supported by evidence. If they knew the latter, then they would be far more reluctant to use things such as bite analysis which would make them worse at winning cases. Doctors are also terrible at evidence based medicine.

That is the problem. Being good at prosecuting a case does not make someone good at knowing what is supported by evidence. If they knew the latter, then they would be far more reluctant to use things such as bite analysis which would make them worse at winning cases. Doctors are also terrible at evidence based medicine.

We're talking about why Mueller brought lesser charges against Flynn than he could have.

No, I'm asking for a peer reviewed study to substantiate that you're not claiming to have sufficient evidence of an answer as to whether you need to depress the clutch to change gear in a manual. Human beings are notoriously bad at understanding how much they do or do not know. For example, the Dunning-Kreuger effect.

No, I'm asking for a peer reviewed study to substantiate that you're not claiming to have sufficient evidence of an answer as to whether you need to depress the clutch to change gear in a manual. Human beings are notoriously bad at understanding how much they do or do not know. For example, the Dunning-Kreuger effect.

I haven't seen much saying that a person stating they don't know something is often incorrect.

I haven't seen much saying that a person stating they don't know something is often incorrect.

All that leads me to think you have no clue how much you have seen saying that. Human beings are notoriously bad at understanding the percentages of their activity. For example, doctors are unable to accurately assess their own c section rates.

Told you so is of no interest to me, but I do worry when I see people sidetracked by a non critical story.

My suggestion is that the truth is hard to determine and that this investigation does end up in an exercise of justifying itself.

This isn't Whitewater, and Mueller isn't Ken Starr.

Quote:

On the Russian Oligarchs I was responding to a post that suggested money laundering. I did a simple calculation to show the scale is not there to chase after. Look at all the foreign buyers of condo units in USA and consider where their money comes from. We don't know but money laundering might be difficult to prove.

That would depend on how effectively it was concealed and what evidence is uncovered. It only needs to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that it occurred with Trump's knowledge for it to be highly problematic for him.

Quote:

The strength for Comey is his honesty and believability. Rightly or wrongly that is weakened by the "leaker" accusations.

Comey has nothing to do with it. He got fired a while back.

Quote:

Is Trump getting "twitchy"?

He has the FBI very much on his mind, and that's not because it's actually "in tatters".

__________________It's a poor sort of memory that only works backward - Lewis Carroll (1832-1898)

God can make a cow out of a tree, but has He ever done so? Therefore show some reason why a thing is so, or cease to hold that it is so - William of Conches, c1150

All that leads me to think you have no clue how much you have seen saying that. Human beings are notoriously bad at understanding the percentages of their activity. For example, doctors are unable to accurately assess their own c section rates.

Absolutely. That is why I have little interest in advocating for my ideas.

That is the problem. Being good at prosecuting a case does not make someone good at knowing what is supported by evidence. If they knew the latter, then they would be far more reluctant to use things such as bite analysis which would make them worse at winning cases. Doctors are also terrible at evidence based medicine.

Has Trump bitten someone now?

__________________It's a poor sort of memory that only works backward - Lewis Carroll (1832-1898)

God can make a cow out of a tree, but has He ever done so? Therefore show some reason why a thing is so, or cease to hold that it is so - William of Conches, c1150

Nope, that still doesn't compute. If districts are based on numbers, then geographic density doesn't matter because denser districts are just smaller. If Democrats are disproportionally concentrated in some districts (which is really what you're referring to), then the other districts will have disproportionally more Republicans. But if you define districts strictly by geographic proximity, compactness, and communities of interests, you will have districts that are fairly immune to the effects that can be artificially produced by gerrymandering.

Take a look at this Wikipedia illustration and assume that the green voters are Democrats geographically concentrated in cities. "Packing" is illustrated by the top right diagram, and it's what Democrats could do to win 60% of the districts even though they are a 40% minority: Without regard for geographic proximity, Republicans have been "packed" into districts where they have large majorities, but Democrats win more districts with small majorities. "Cracking" is illustrated in the top center diagram, where the urban area is deliberately split up and the small pieces and added to rural districts where they are outnumbered by Republicans, leaving Democrats no districts at all instead of their fair share of 40%. The bottom two diagrams are more like what would happen without such engineering.

Again, nope, not unless you drop the two extra electoral votes each state gets. That's the source of the unequal representation.

Suppose 100 people, districts 33 people, 80 are democrats. Under equal distribution, there would be 3 democrat congressman. If those 80 move into one city, there isn't a compact way to slice the city that doesn't create two districts of 66 democrat. So, republicans are guaranteed a district in this scenario.

__________________Continually pushing the boundaries of mediocrity.
Everything is possible, but not everything is probable.
For if a man pretend to me that God hath spoken to him supernaturally, and immediately, and I make doubt of it, I cannot easily perceive what argument he can produce to oblige me to believe it. Hobbes

My pointing out how the big sort affects districting is a tangential point. A non gerrymandering Virginia map would still favor republicans more than if democrats were evenly distributed through the state.

Suppose 100 people, districts 33 people, 80 are democrats. Under equal distribution, there would be 3 democrat congressman. If those 80 move into one city, there isn't a compact way to slice the city that doesn't create two districts of 66 democrat. So, republicans are guaranteed a district in this scenario.

The fact that your example is so extreme and unrealistic actually illustrates my point that in the real world, it would be "fairly immune" to undemocratic effects like gerrymandering. Your scenario assumes all the Democrats live in the city and two districts are carved out there having no Republicans at all, and then another district encompassing the rest of the city and the rest of the state. Even if the district lines were drawn that way for whatever reason, if the two districts in the city are really only 31 Democrats vs. 2 Republicans, Democrats would also win the third district 18 to 16.

The fact that your example is so extreme and unrealistic actually illustrates my point that in the real world, it would be "fairly immune" to undemocratic effects like gerrymandering. Your scenario assumes all the Democrats live in the city and two districts are carved out there having no Republicans at all, and then another district encompassing the rest of the city and the rest of the state. Even if the district lines were drawn that way for whatever reason, if the two districts in the city are really only 31 Democrats vs. 2 Republicans, Democrats would also win the third district 18 to 16.

A) extreme scenarios are used as illustration. It makes sense to start with the most mathematically simple version. It is a feature, not a bug. We will get separately to if it represents the real world or not.

B)One of the assumptions of the city was it violated compactness and community of interest to bring in two republicans from the rural portion.

A) extreme scenarios are used as illustration. It makes sense to start with the most mathematically simple version. It is a feature, not a bug. We will get separately to if it represents the real world or not.

B)One of the assumptions of the city was it violated compactness and community of interest to bring in two republicans from the rural portion.

This process is likely to undermine the representation of Democrats for three reasons. First, suppose that the initial seed is a precinct in one of the stalactites representing Floridaís large cities, such as Miami, Jacksonville, or Tampa. Such a city is sufficiently large that this process will likely combine extremely Democratic districts with other extremely Democratic districts, thereby forming a district that is overwhelmingly Democratic. Second, outside of little Havana, it is difficult to find a Florida precinct that, when randomly chosen as the initial seed, would produce an analogously extreme Republican district. In addition to being more internally heterogeneous, Republican precincts tend to be located in heterogeneous suburban and rural areas of the state where their nearest neighbors are more diverse. For instance, suppose the initially chosen precinct is rural and extremely pro-Republican. If one strings together neighboring precincts until reaching the population threshold for a district, this will usually require the inclusion of some rather heterogeneous precincts, often including pockets of Democrats in small cities or towns and on the fringes of larger cities. A third reason concerns the locations of small Democratic-leaning towns throughout Florida. Although dense, pro-Democratic cities are often combined together to form Democratic districts along the Eastern Coast, there are also small, isolated, inland pockets of Democratic voters in the manufacturing and transportation agglomerations that sprung up along railroad tracks in the nineteenth century, such as Ocala or Pensacola, and the college towns of Tallahassee and Gainesville. When the size of districts is large relative to these small clusters of Democrats, these towns are often subsumed into predominantly rural, moderately Republican districts, thus wasting Democratic votes in districts that are won by Republicans. The roots of unintentional gerrymandering in Florida can be summarized as follows. The complex process of migration, sorting, and residential segregation that generated a spatial distribution of partisanship has left the Democrats with a more geographically concentrated support base than Republicans. When compact, contiguous districts are imposed onto this geography without regard for partisanship, the result will be a skew in the distribution of partisanship across districts such that with 50% of the votes, Democrats can expect fewer than 50% of the seats.

That is the problem. Being good at prosecuting a case does not make someone good at knowing what is supported by evidence. If they knew the latter, then they would be far more reluctant to use things such as bite analysis which would make them worse at winning cases. Doctors are also terrible at evidence based medicine.

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim

We're talking about why Mueller brought lesser charges against Flynn than he could have.

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

And we don't have a peer reviewed researched answer to this question.

That is beside the point. We are not speculating about the best approach to determine the truth in the light of obstruction - something that is not amenable to peer review anyway. We are speculating why an investigator with experience of investigating organised criminals is bringing lesser charges than he could against Flynn. Pointing out that this is how the FBI typically operates against organised criminals says nothing about whether this is the best approach.

If you want to discuss whether this is the best approach, that would be a derail, but given that the aim is to find out what happened, and the fact that this has worked in persuading lesser criminals to provide evidence against greater criminals, it does seem effective.

__________________OECD healthcare spending
Expenditure on healthcarehttp://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/health-data.htm
link is 2015 data (2013 Data below):
UK 8.5% of GDP of which 83.3% is public expenditure - 7.1% of GDP is public spending
US 16.4% of GDP of which 48.2% is public expenditure - 7.9% of GDP is public spending

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.